Rename NodeFactory to PreBasis

We discussed and decided the renaming on the last meeting. Reasons for renaming:

• The name NodeFactory does not fit because it creates more than just nodes
• The FactoryTag/FactoryBuilder classes are really factories that create a NodeFactory, but we would not like to use NodeFactoryFactory
• PreBasis is more understandable: It's almost a basis.

I renamed all occurrences in dune-functions. If you implemented your own node-factory, you only need to take care that the concept name was changed from NodeFactory to PreBasis. The actual naming of your class is an implementation detail. However, for consistency you may want to adapt this also.

This implements the change we decided. For normal users this will not require any changes. However, implementors of global bases may need to adjust there code:

• If you used the makeBasis() approach, then your code will work as before.
• If you used the NodeFactory classes manually you will have to adapt to the renaming.
• If you used internal details of the NodeFactory classes you may have to adjust your code to some internal renaming.
• If you implemented your own NodeFactory it should still work, but you may want to rename it.
• If you used the Concept::NodeFactor concept, you have to change this to Concept::PreBasis.

mentioned in merge request !92 (merged)

I asked @lasse.hinrichsen who's probably one of the few people who implemented a NodeFactory outside of dune-functions to test this. There's only one tiny modification you need to do with your own implementation:

You have to rename the NodeIndexSet::NodeFactory to NodeIndexSet::PreBasis. While this is not used anywhere in the code, the Concept::PreBasis requires this typedef.

merged

mentioned in commit d95a5338

I'm undecided if this should be in 2.6. On the one hand this is a late incompatible change. On the other hand this has no impact on normal users. But for implementors I'd like to publish the cleaned up interface rather earlier than later. Opinions?

mentioned in issue #13 (closed)

I agree that we should perform the switch before too many people use these interfaces.

Does this also apply to !92 (merged) ?

Does this also apply to !92 (merged) ?

yes

mentioned in merge request !94 (merged)